Back to Scanners and Comparisons.

Here is an excellent comparison of scanners, which I did not know existed
food for thought.

http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/#
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

www.gregblankphoto(dot)com

Recently, Gregory Blank posted:

Here is an excellent comparison of scanners, which I did not know
existed food for thought.

http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/#

Thanks for the link, Greg! I like the way the comparisons are set up... it
is quite enlightening, even if I'd like to have more details about who and
how the scans were done, especially the Scitex vs. Tango versions.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Gregory Blank posted:


Here is an excellent comparison of scanners, which I did not know
existed food for thought.

http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/#


Thanks for the link, Greg! I like the way the comparisons are set up... it
is quite enlightening, even if I'd like to have more details about who and
how the scans were done, especially the Scitex vs. Tango versions.

Neil




Both the Scitex and the Tango are quite old. The one that surprised me
is the Polaroid, since I would not have thought that old a scanner could
still hold up so well. The ICG 350 is still quite good, though their
newer products have moved onwards and upwards. However, I think the
f19.0 aperture used for the original film image might be more of a
limitation than the capabilities of either the Heidelberg Tango or ICG
350. That is not to state that the scan samples from those two are
really quite good, as should be expected considering the pricing.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

Both the Scitex and the Tango are quite old. The one that surprised me
is the Polaroid, since I would not have thought that old a scanner
could still hold up so well. The ICG 350 is still quite good, though
their newer products have moved onwards and upwards. However, I think
the f19.0 aperture used for the original film image might be more of a
limitation than the capabilities of either the Heidelberg Tango or ICG
350. That is not to state that the scan samples from those two are
really quite good, as should be expected considering the pricing.

Oldies can be goodies, as can be seen from the results. I haven't had the
time to thoroughly "mix and match" the various models, but in the little
time that I spent, the color fidelity and detail of those two scanners
stood out. They were significantly better than the consumer models. It
demonstrates, once again, that there is a lot more information on film
than most people are getting if they aren't using equipment of that
calibre or better.

Regards,

Neil

Neil Gould apparently said,on my timestamp of 5/12/2005 9:56 AM:


demonstrates, once again, that there is a lot more information on film
than most people are getting if they aren't using equipment of that
calibre or better.

Bingo!

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

Both the Scitex and the Tango are quite old. The one that surprised me
is the Polaroid, since I would not have thought that old a scanner
could still hold up so well. The ICG 350 is still quite good, though
their newer products have moved onwards and upwards. However, I think
the f19.0 aperture used for the original film image might be more of a
limitation than the capabilities of either the Heidelberg Tango or ICG
350. That is not to state that the scan samples from those two are
really quite good, as should be expected considering the pricing.


Oldies can be goodies, as can be seen from the results. I haven't had the
time to thoroughly "mix and match" the various models, but in the little
time that I spent, the color fidelity and detail of those two scanners
stood out. They were significantly better than the consumer models. It
demonstrates, once again, that there is a lot more information on film
than most people are getting if they aren't using equipment of that
calibre or better.

Regards,

Neil



What I found interesting is that I could actually see differences in the
JPEGs. Obviously, we both know that a JPEG is a poor way to judge how a
printed item will turn out, though the fact that differences are visible
in such a low quality representation of scans is interesting. I have
been mostly opposed to these internet challenges mostly due to the
degradation of images by posting and viewing JPEGs.

Anyway, certainly the Heidelberg Tango more than five years after it
came out is still a good system. Shame that Heidelberg got out of that
market, since I would imagine a replacement would have been even more
developed. At least ICG is still in this market, though I rarely find
places that use these.

The latest Creo scanners are even better than the old EverSmart
represented in the tests. Hopefully Kodak will not stagnate further
development of the current iQSmart and EverSmart products. Probably some
speculation, but I think even the somewhat low end (for high end gear)
iQSmart 1 would do a better job in this test.

I agree that there is lots of information on film, though the problem is
that few people will ever have their films scanned on a high end drum
scanner. Even for commercial work, the Creo flatbed scans are much more
common, more cost effective, and often a faster turnaround. A
professional might consider getting a new Creo iQSmart 1 for under
$9000, but would rarely ever consider an ICG for over $30000.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

I agree that there is lots of information on film, though the problem is
that few people will ever have their films scanned on a high end drum
scanner. Even for commercial work, the Creo flatbed scans are much more
common, more cost effective, and often a faster turnaround. A
professional might consider getting a new Creo iQSmart 1 for under
$9000, but would rarely ever consider an ICG for over $30000.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Ah humbug- whats another 30k :-)
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

www.gregblankphoto(dot)com

Recently, rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net posted:

You'll notice that the Microtek scan in the comparison
was in fact done by me. I am/was under no delusions
that it could match a Howtek, Tango or ICG drum scan.
The Microtek has since been sold.

I did notice that, and wondered how you did that scan? What scanner
software did you use, and what were the settings? It looks like somewhat
radical processing was done.

Neil

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:13:56 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net posted:

You'll notice that the Microtek scan in the comparison
was in fact done by me. I am/was under no delusions
that it could match a Howtek, Tango or ICG drum scan.
The Microtek has since been sold.

I did notice that, and wondered how you did that scan? What scanner
software did you use, and what were the settings? It looks like somewhat
radical processing was done.


Microtek's ScanWizard. Nothing special on my part,
but I don't know what Leigh Perry might have done
with the scans.

What is it that looks "radical" to you?

IMO, it's clearly sharper than any of the Epsons, but
not as sharp as any of the drums. It's closest to the
Polaroid 45, which isn't surprising -- the Polaroid is
probably another Microtek design.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Recently, rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net posted:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:13:56 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net posted:

You'll notice that the Microtek scan in the comparison
was in fact done by me. I am/was under no delusions
that it could match a Howtek, Tango or ICG drum scan.
The Microtek has since been sold.

I did notice that, and wondered how you did that scan? What scanner
software did you use, and what were the settings? It looks like
somewhat radical processing was done.

Microtek's ScanWizard. Nothing special on my part,
but I don't know what Leigh Perry might have done
with the scans.

ScanWizard has some strengths and weaknesses, like any other software. I
don't find the "stock" settings to be all that useful, but mostly because
there aren't any stock settings for some of the film that I shoot. ;-)

What is it that looks "radical" to you?

Comparing the text sample and clothing in the frame below it, the color
balance looks like it has way too much red, and the contrast seems rather
high, even in comparison to the other Microtek i900, which is much softer,
but has a color balance and contrast closer to the other scanners.

IMO, it's clearly sharper than any of the Epsons, but
not as sharp as any of the drums. It's closest to the
Polaroid 45, which isn't surprising -- the Polaroid is
probably another Microtek design.

The Polaroid also looks like it has too much red.

Regards,

Neil